Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The reduction in funding that many American universities are experiencing has led to concerns that these institutions will rely more on corporations to provide funding for research. Unfortunately, industry-funded research can have a corrupting effect on science. Since universities are generally thought of as institutions that advance science, some of their representatives have an interest in reducing the misleading research funded by corporations. In this paper, I include a vignette that shows how the quantitative research that many corporations fund can lead to deceptive results. I also provide examples of cases involving harmful practices that occurred at universities. Finally, I offer strategies that would likely reduce the misleading research funded by corporations.

Keywords

Educational policy higher education industry-funded research qualitative research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahuja

(2019) Should RCT’s be used as the gold standard for evidence based medicine? Integrative Medicine Research 8(1): 31–32.

Altbach

de Wit

(2018, 9 September) Too much academic research is being published. University World News. Available at: https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20180905095203579 (accessed 15 November 2021).

Anderson

(2010) Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 74(8): 141.

Basch

(2011) Aggression and violence and the achievement gap among urban minority youth. Journal of School Health 81(10): 619–625.

Basken

(2018, 25 February) How to protect your college’s research from undue corporate influence. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-protect-your-colleges-research-from-undue-corporate-influence/ (accessed 10 December 2021).

Becker

(1990) Generalizing from case studies. In: Eisner

Peshkin

(eds) Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 233–242.

Berliner

Glass

(2014) 50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America’s Public Schools: The Real Crisis in Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bero

(2019, 2 October) When big companies fund academic research, the truth often comes last. The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/when-big-companies-fund-academic-research-the-truth-often-comes-last-119164 (accessed 17 November 2021).

Bhide

Shah

Acharya

(2018) A simplified guide to randomized controlled trials. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 97(4): 380–387.

10.

Blinder

(2015, 1 April) Atlanta educators convicted in school cheating scandal. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/us/verdict-reached-in-atlanta-school-testing-trial.html (accessed 11 November 2021).

11.

Britten

(2010) Qualitative research and the take-up of evidence-based practice. Journal of Research in Nursing 15(6): 537–544.

12.

Burch

(2020) Federal policy and the push to privatize education. Phi Delta Kappan 102(2): 14–20.

13.

California Department of Education (2021) Evidence-based interventions under the ESSA. Available at: https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/es/evidence.asp (accessed 12 April 2022).

14.

Campbell

(1979) Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation & Program Planning 2(1): 67–90.

15.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2021) History of the surgeon general’s reports on smoking and health. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/history/index.htm (accessed 26 April 2022).

16.

Cheek

(2008) The practice and politics of funded qualitative research. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 45–74.

17.

Cheek

(2011) Points of hesitation: human rights, social justice and qualitative research. International Review of Qualitative Research 4(2): 209–218.

18.

Connolly

Biggart

Miller

, et al. (2017) Using Randomised Controlled Trials in Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

19.

Daniel

(2016) The usefulness of qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in researching problem-solving ability in science education curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice 7(15): 91–100.

20.

Deming

(2011) Better schools, less crime? Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4): 2063–2115.

21.

Denzin

(2010) The Qualitative Manifesto: A Call to Arms. New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Denzin

Giardina

(2017) Introduction: qualitative inquiry in neoliberal times. In: Denzin

Giardina

(eds) Qualitative Inquiry in Neoliberal Times. New York, NY: Routledge, 1–16.

23.

Denzin

Lincoln

(2018) The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,1–26.

24.

Denzin

Lincoln

Giardina

(2006) Disciplining qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19(6): 769–782.

25.

Every-Palmer

Howick

(2014) How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 20(6): 908–914.

26.

Fabbri

Lai

Grundy

, et al. (2018) The influence of industry sponsorship on the research agenda: a scoping review. American Journal of Public Health 108(11): e9–e16.

27.

Fauber

(2014, 25 June) 9 of 19 experts on pain panel tied to drug companies. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Available at: https://archive.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/9-of-19-experts-on-pain-panel-tied-to-drug-companies-b99297383z1-264557901.html (accessed 11 December 2021).

28.

Giroux

King-White

(2018) Truth for sale: Penn State, (Joe) Paterno, and Terry Pegula. In: King-White

(ed) Sport and the Neoliberal University: Profit, Politics, and Pedagogy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 2–34.

29.

Glesne

(2016) Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. New York: Pearson.

30.

Johnson

Christensen

(2017) Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

31.

Kahan

Rehal

Cro

(2015) Risk of selection bias in randomised trials. Trials 16: 405.

32.

Krimsky

(2003) Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

33.

Mahoney

Goertz

(2006) A tale of two cultures: contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis 14(3): 227–249.

34.

Marusic

(2019, 15 April) After a decade of research, here’s what scientists know about the health impacts of fracking. Environmental Health News. Available at: https://www.ehn.org/health-impacts-of-fracking-2634432607.html (accessed 17 December 2021).

35.

Maxwell

(2010) Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 16(6): 475–482.

36.

Mayring

(2014) Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Available at: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/39517/ssoar-2014-mayring-Qualitative_content_analysis_theoretical_foundation.pdf (accessed 15 November 2021).

37.

McCluskey

(2017, 3 April) Public universities get an education in private industry. The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/04/public-universities-get-an-education-in-private-industry/521379/ (accessed 11 December 2021).

38.

Merriam

Tisdell

(2016) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

39.

Morgan

(2016) Relying on high-stakes standardized tests to evaluate schools and teachers: A bad idea. The Clearing House 89(2): 67–72.

40.

Nichols

Berliner

(2007) Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

41.

Paci

Prestera

Ferrarello

(2020) Generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials in post-stroke physiotherapy. Physiotherapy Canada 72(4): 382–393.

42.

Patton

(2015) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

43.

Petersen

(2012, 15 April) As beef cattle become behemoths, who are animal scientists serving? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/as-beef-cattle-become-behemoths-who-are-animal-scientists-serving/?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in

44.

Popper

(2015, 3 November) Success metrics questioned in school program funded by Goldman. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/business/dealbook/did-goldman-make-the-grade.html (accessed 15 November 2021).

45.

Resnik

(2010) Financial interests and the norms of academic science. In: Radder

(ed) The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 65–89.

46.

Rothwell

(2010) External validity of results of randomized trials: disentangling a complex concept. International Journal of Epidemiology 39(1): 94–96.

47.

Smith

(1990) Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in America. New York, NY: Viking.

48.

Washburn

(2005) The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education. New York, NY: University, IncBasic Books.

49.

World Health Organization (2019) Tobacco industry: decades of deception and duplicity. Available at: https://applications.emro.who.int/docs/FS-TFI-198-2019-EN.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 12 December 2021).

Reducing corporate influence on university research in America

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References